PDA

View Full Version : Refs decision/McGowan Headbutt



CmoantheHibs
02-01-2012, 03:04 PM
Now dont get me wrong.I dont think we should have won today.There was no lack of effort and I thought there were some decent performances especially at the back but we have an obvious lack of creativity in midfield especially with Osbourne missing.The thing that got me was why the hearts player wasnt sent off for butting Ivan in the stomach.If he had butted Ivan in the head it would have been a straight red,no questions asked.So why no red because he did it lower?It obviously had a huge impact on the game as he scored their 1st goal.Maybe the linesman or ref never seen it which is fair enough but this decision did have a major impact on the game..

easty
02-01-2012, 03:09 PM
was never a red. McGowan should have got a yellow, for being stupid, but it wasnt violent conduct. The impact of Sproules theatrical dive to the ground would have had more force in it.

Hibs7
02-01-2012, 03:15 PM
The biggest problem was him not giving a penalty for Websters push on O'Hanlon, Webster would have been off and we could have been leading 2-1. This and the penalty given to Aberdeen when it was proved a dive has cost us crucial points. There are 2 genuine instances where tv should be used in matches. This will put supporters off big time when they know the game is not fair. It is too big business now to ignore technology.

East Coast Hibe
02-01-2012, 03:17 PM
Webster pulled back Griffiths in the box as well. It should have been a penalty.

Eyrie
02-01-2012, 03:17 PM
I think that it was a technical sending off, in that it is the intent by the player rather than the force of the head butt that is punishable. That said, Sproule embarrased himself by flopping to the ground, especially when it became clear that the officials had missed the contact.

On the other big decisions

1 - Never a penalty when Griffiths went down. If that had been given against us we'd be spitting blood.

2 - Their penalty was fair enough, but I just wish Stack had come out faster and with more force. He'd either have got there first (no penalty) or at least done some damage. Still Booth's fault for the passback though.

3 - How did the officials miss the blatant offside for their opener? I was screaming at the TV for it in real time and yet even the commentators took several minutes to spot that Stack reacted late because Elliot had unsighted him.

FitbaFolkKen
02-01-2012, 03:21 PM
I think that it was a technical sending off, in that it is the intent by the player rather than the force of the head butt that is punishable. That said, Sproule embarrased himself by flopping to the ground, especially when it became clear that the officials had missed the contact.

On the other big decisions

1 - Never a penalty when Griffiths went down. If that had been given against us we'd be spitting blood.

2 - Their penalty was fair enough, but I just wish Stack had come out faster and with more force. He'd either have got there first (no penalty) or at least done some damage. Still Booth's fault for the passback though.

3 - How did the officials miss the blatant offside for their opener? I was screaming at the TV for it in real time and yet even the commentators took several minutes to spot that Stack reacted late because Elliot had unsighted him.

2. Stack should have used his left and gone through him, but he saved it so no harm done.

3. I think they all just assumed there was someone on the post, I think we only had 5 or 6 players in the box for the corner though so there was no contingency when Hanlon totally lost Mcgowan.

MrSmith
02-01-2012, 03:21 PM
In-line technology needs to be incorporated now. It is used in Rugby and does not take away from the game nor the atmosphere. It is great when issues occur that are decided by TV and fans get to see them back on the big screens - no probs and no wrong calls!

mentalhibee
02-01-2012, 03:24 PM
The Ref used to have a hearts season ticket when he was younger so it's to be expected!! Mental that he gets to take charge of the derby.

Carheenlea
02-01-2012, 03:25 PM
You can throw in the fact Hearts' first goal was offside as well. Poor decisions that are further salt in the wound. Sproule was butted in the chest, pure and simple, and a red card offence. How much Ivan over egged it is irrelevant.
That said, our problems run a lot deeper than complaining about inept refereeing. When you are down at the bottom of the league, these things always seem to go against you.

I Love Lamp
02-01-2012, 03:26 PM
Pretty sure he's publicly admitted being a Hearts supporter so it's no surprise that the key decisions went against Hibs. It's ridiculous but that's the way things work in Scotland. Just have to rise above it but, sadly, Hibs looked incapable of that today.

CmoantheHibs
02-01-2012, 03:28 PM
I think that it was a technical sending off, in that it is the intent by the player rather than the force of the head butt that is punishable. That said, Sproule embarrased himself by flopping to the ground, especially when it became clear that the officials had missed the contact.

On the other big decisions

1 - Never a penalty when Griffiths went down. If that had been given against us we'd be spitting blood.

2 - Their penalty was fair enough, but I just wish Stack had come out faster and with more force. He'd either have got there first (no penalty) or at least done some damage. Still Booth's fault for the passback though.

3 - How did the officials miss the blatant offside for their opener? I was screaming at the TV for it in real time and yet even the commentators took several minutes to spot that Stack reacted late because Elliot had unsighted him.

Agree with most of this although Im not sure Stack expected Booth to give him the ball in such a ridiculous scenario.

Carheenlea
02-01-2012, 03:29 PM
I think that it was a technical sending off, in that it is the intent by the player rather than the force of the head butt that is punishable. That said, Sproule embarrased himself by flopping to the ground, especially when it became clear that the officials had missed the contact.

On the other big decisions

1 - Never a penalty when Griffiths went down. If that had been given against us we'd be spitting blood.

2 - Their penalty was fair enough, but I just wish Stack had come out faster and with more force. He'd either have got there first (no penalty) or at least done some damage. Still Booth's fault for the passback though.

3 - How did the officials miss the blatant offside for their opener? I was screaming at the TV for it in real time and yet even the commentators took several minutes to spot that Stack reacted late because Elliot had unsighted him.
Griffiths had his shirt pulled for about 4 seconds and clearly impeded. Penalty, and should have been an easy decision.

CmoantheHibs
02-01-2012, 03:33 PM
The Ref used to have a hearts season ticket when he was younger so it's to be expected!! Mental that he gets to take charge of the derby.

I had read that on here previous and was worried when I seen he was reffing.Think it was more down to the incompetence or tough jobthey have rather than any bias though.Still agree its not a good idea to have him in charge of an Edinburgh derby though.

cabbageandribs1875
02-01-2012, 03:39 PM
i honestly believe that it works the opposite way, a professional referee would be pretty conscious of the fact he has to be seen as not being bias against a team he follows, unfortunately, callum murray's performance today has me doubting my initial beliefs :agree:

PeeJay
02-01-2012, 03:42 PM
was never a red. McGowan should have got a yellow, for being stupid, but it wasnt violent conduct. The impact of Sproules theatrical dive to the ground would have had more force in it.

You don't think it was violent conduct - head butting a player in retaliation? Straight red for me!

Moulin Yarns
02-01-2012, 03:43 PM
Head butt on Sproule, Zinedan Zedane effort, so should have been off.

Elliot offside at first goal. And interfering with play.

2 major decisions the ref got wrong today. IMHO

PeeJay
02-01-2012, 03:45 PM
Head butt on Sproule, Zinedan Zedane effort, so should have been off.

Elliot offside at first goal. And interfering with play.

2 major decisions the ref got wrong today. IMHO

:top marks

Saorsa
02-01-2012, 03:45 PM
Ref was a h****s ****

Gus Fring
02-01-2012, 03:47 PM
Neil Mccanns quote on the analysis had me in stitches "There no aggression from Macgowan". Aye cos people regularly ram the nut on people in a non aggressive fashion. Utter breast of a man

haagsehibby
02-01-2012, 03:48 PM
Head butt on Sproule, Zinedan Zedane effort, so should have been off.

Elliot offside at first goal. And interfering with play.

2 major decisions the ref got wrong today. IMHO

And a third with Webster's blatant push on O'Hanlon in the box.

HibeeMackenzie
02-01-2012, 03:49 PM
Foul throw for the second goal as well, mcgowans foot was half a yard on the pitch

Billy Whizz
02-01-2012, 03:53 PM
Head butt on Sproule, Zinedan Zedane effort, so should have been off.

Elliot offside at first goal. And interfering with play.

2 major decisions the ref got wrong today. IMHO

As he wasn't booked for the incident I hope the SFA compliance have another look at it

easty
02-01-2012, 03:56 PM
Head butt on Sproule, Zinedan Zedane effort, so should have been off.



Aye just like the Zidane head butt. :rolleyes:

HibsNutter
02-01-2012, 04:04 PM
Was I imagining things or did Ryan Mcgowan(?) headbutt Sproule infront of the referee and linesman then get away with it?

LancashireHibby
02-01-2012, 04:08 PM
Sproule seemed to make the most of it (confirmed by a mate watching the game on telly) but to me McGowan definitely made contact with his head in Sproule's chest so must surely be a red card for violent conduct. Hearts even got the free kick because of the initial foul by Sproule.

Saorsa
02-01-2012, 04:09 PM
Aye just like the Zidane head butt. :rolleyes:He made contact, even if there was nae contact (which players have been sent off for) but intent, it was retaliation and should have been a red IMO, from the scvumbo ref though it didnae even merit a booking or even a talking tae which is ridiculous. Quite happy tae book Hibs players at almost every opportunity that presented itself.

weecounty hibby
02-01-2012, 04:11 PM
Lets not clutch at straws. If I was Ivan I would not only be embarrassed by my inept performance but by my pathetic attempt to get someone sent off. It probably merited a yellow but I think the ref actually called it right, too many times players get sent off for things like that, it really was a nothing that Ivan tried to make a something.

easty
02-01-2012, 04:12 PM
Sproule seemed to make the most of it (confirmed by a mate watching the game on telly) but to me McGowan definitely made contact with his head in Sproule's chest so must surely be a red card for violent conduct. Hearts even got the free kick because of the initial foul by Sproule.

Why shouldnt they have got the freekick for the initial foul?

Seriously, if there's violent conduct then I do agree there should be a red card but that wee head push thing from McGowan was little more than nothing. My granny would have laughed that off, not fell on the ground a rolled about in agony, as Sproule did.

Elephant Stone
02-01-2012, 04:13 PM
Lets not clutch at straws. If I was Ivan I would not only be embarrassed by my inept performance but by my pathetic attempt to get someone sent off. It probably merited a yellow but I think the ref actually called it right, too many times players get sent off for things like that, it really was a nothing that Ivan tried to make a something.

:agree: Ivan should be concentrating on making some basic runs into space and putting in some simple crosses rather than committing stupid, obvious fouls and trying to get people sent off. He's been a massive disappointment.

hibee_girl
02-01-2012, 04:13 PM
I think Ivan was very lucky not to be booked for his challenge prior to the headbutt. He then made the most of the headbutt and the ref seemed to just let both things slide.

PatHead
02-01-2012, 04:18 PM
As he wasn't booked for the incident I hope the SFA compliance have another look at it

Why, so that one of the other relagation candidates can benefit? If he didn't get (didn'@tget) sent off there is no advantage to Hibs in him getting a retrospective punishment

easty
02-01-2012, 04:20 PM
He made contact, even if there was nae contact (which players have been sent off for) but intent, it was retaliation and should have been a red IMO, from the scvumbo ref though it didnae even merit a booking or even a talking tae which is ridiculous. Quite happy tae book Hibs players at almost every opportunity that presented itself.

Intent to what? He didnt go to hurt Sproule. You can't possibly believe that what McGowan did could have hurt anyone? It was a moment of stupidity from the yam. I'll compare it to Yaya Toure on Mata a couple of weeks ago, he gave him a wee tap on the head, he gave him a wee nudge with the boot. Aye, there were folk saying it should have been a red but he didnt get anything. Why? Because there was nothing in it.

But....**** it. If people on here genuinly believe that it deserved a red card then I'll leave you all to it.

21.05.2016
02-01-2012, 04:23 PM
Ref was poor today but we cannot blame him for the defeat, we have to look closer to home, our team are just gutless!

Sir David Gray
02-01-2012, 04:30 PM
I missed the incident but if MacGowan made contact AT ALL with Sproule then it should have resulted in a straight red card.

It's irrelevant if Sproule did make the most of it.

stoneyburn hibs
02-01-2012, 04:33 PM
Sproule was late for almost every tackle he made today, should never start for hibs

Saorsa
02-01-2012, 04:33 PM
Ref was poor today but we cannot blame him for the defeat, we have to look closer to home, our team are just gutless!The ref isnae responsible for our being crap but he was poorer for one side than he was the other, there's nae two ways about that IMO. Sparky was pulled down by his shirt in the box, the yam was off side and interfering with play at the first, nae booking or even talking tae for the head butt tae name but a few.

archiecoby
02-01-2012, 04:34 PM
It does not matter if it was 'soft' contact - it was a red card offence for violent conduct!

If Sproule had done the same at *********** you can guarantee he would have been sent off.

Its like saying if someone swung a weak punch then its not violent conduct because he would not have hurt him much....

easty
02-01-2012, 04:38 PM
It does not matter if it was 'soft' contact - it was a red card offence for violent conduct!

If Sproule had done the same at *********** you can guarantee he would have been sent off.

Its like saying if someone swung a weak punch then its not violent conduct because he would not have hurt him much....

Your first point - It does matter and naw it wasnae.

Your second - Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldnt.

Your last - Naw it's no. Swinging a punch isn't the same thing as pushing your head into someones belly.

archiecoby
02-01-2012, 04:40 PM
Your first point - It does matter and naw it wasnae.

Your second - Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldnt.

Your last - Naw it's no. Swinging a punch isn't the same thing as pushing your head into someones belly.


We'll have to agree to disagree then as it was violent conduct and he should have been sent off in my opinion.......

easty
02-01-2012, 04:42 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree then as it was violent conduct and he should have been sent off in my opinion.......

I dont even think he'll get a retrospective ban for it.

Wotherspiniesta
02-01-2012, 04:46 PM
How the **** was Skacel not booked after running to the East to show off infront of the Hibs fans?

The ref was a ginger Hearts ****

CmoantheHibs
02-01-2012, 05:00 PM
Your first point - It does matter and naw it wasnae.

Your second - Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldnt.

Your last - Naw it's no. Swinging a punch isn't the same thing as pushing your head into someones belly.

I disagree with this.He has actively thrown his head to Ivans stomach.Its a definate case of aggresive behaviour.I dont know whether it hurt Ivan or not.It may have winded him as he wasnt expecting it or he may have just been up to mischief.It doesnt matter though.In todays game you cannot get away with that(unlessnit goes unspotted of course).When beckham got sent off in the world cup it was a pitiful little swipe but was accepted globally as being the correct decision.

Aldo
02-01-2012, 05:08 PM
I disagree with this.He has actively thrown his head to Ivans stomach.Its a definate case of aggresive behaviour.I dont know whether it hurt Ivan or not.It may have winded him as he wasnt expecting it or he may have just been up to mischief.It doesnt matter though.In todays game you cannot get away with that(unlessnit goes unspotted of course).When beckham got sent off in the world cup it was a pitiful little swipe but was accepted globally as being the correct decision.

Intent on violence. Head butt wether its to the head, gut, chest or baws should be a red card ENDOF. If that was Sproule against any of them then RED CARD.

This really does anger me.

21.05.2016
02-01-2012, 05:24 PM
was never a red. McGowan should have got a yellow, for being stupid, but it wasnt violent conduct. The impact of Sproules theatrical dive to the ground would have had more force in it.

:agree:, stupid for doing it but Sproule dived embarrassingly to the ground in an attempt to get him sent off. If that had been a hearts player we would all be shouting cheat.

McGowan should have been booked as that could have sparked further trouble.

What disappointed me most about the incident was that none of our players including our captain questioned or got angry at the ref for letting him away with nothing. If that had been hearts, they would have been angry for not getting anything. Thats what I want to see from us, seeing players look interested !

JimBHibees
02-01-2012, 05:37 PM
Head butt on Sproule, Zinedan Zedane effort, so should have been off.

Elliot offside at first goal. And interfering with play.

2 major decisions the ref got wrong today. IMHO

Yep not sure it was the refs call for the headbutt more the linesman who had a perfect view. It was a clear red card though. Thought Andy Webster reffed the game well though.

The decision for the first goal was bent IMO as that was as clear an offside as you can get and when you get a forward ducking right in front of the goalie then Yes that is interferiing.

We are getting shafted big time at the moment with major decisions IMO.

Murray should never ref a derby again as he clearly favours Hearts in 50/50s. Was it not the New Year derby last season when he denied Hibs a blatant penalty.

Hibs Class
02-01-2012, 05:43 PM
How the **** was Skacel not booked after running to the East to show off infront of the Hibs fans?

The ref was a ginger Hearts ****

He didn't leave the pitch and he wasn't antagonistic. Think all he did was point to his name? No justification to book him.




Of more concern is the regularity with which their support think they can run onto our pitch whenever they score against us. I'd like to see stewards stationed at the corner flags with flame throwers. :thumbsup:

JimBHibees
02-01-2012, 05:44 PM
:What disappointed me most about the incident was that none of our players including our captain questioned or got angry at the ref for letting him away with nothing. If that had been hearts, they would have been angry for not getting anything. Thats what I want to see from us, seeing players look interested !

Agree completely with that Webster is pulling Sproule up and not one Hibs player did anything about it. As you say if it has been the other way round Webster and the other gargolyes would have been badgering their pet ref.

Sir David Gray
02-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Yep not sure it was the refs call for the headbutt more the linesman who had a perfect view. It was a clear red card though. Thought Andy Webster reffed the game well though.

The decision for the first goal was bent IMO as that was as clear an offside as you can get and when you get a forward ducking right in front of the goalie then Yes that is interferiing.

We are getting shafted big time at the moment with major decisions IMO.

Murray should never ref a derby again as he clearly favours Hearts in 50/50s. Was it not the New Year derby last season when he denied Hibs a blatant penalty.

The stonewall handball at Tynecastle, up at the Hibs end?

Couldn't have told you who the referee was that day but to this day I can't believe we didn't get a penalty for that.

It's one of the clearest handballs you're likely to see.

hibernator
02-01-2012, 05:54 PM
abysmal refereeing if not plain biased, all fouls on black yellow carded, elliot on booth= not even a word, webster shirt pulling= not a word, webster dive in box agnst o'hanlon = not a word, mcgowan clear head butt=not a word (btw we had a young ch sent off agnst celtic for exact same a few years back, so end of arguement) elliot, offside, ducks to avoid touching ball (ducked mind !)not a word, goal allowed, webster shove on o'hanlon blatant= not a word, check that re abysmal, just corrupt! :rules: :rules::rules:

JimBHibees
02-01-2012, 05:54 PM
The stonewall handball at Tynecastle, up at the Hibs end?

Couldn't have told you who the referee was that day but to this day I can't believe we didn't get a penalty for that.

It's one of the clearest handballs you're likely to see.

Yep same ref, obviously doesnt want to upset his Hearts supporting relatives at New Year. :greengrin

MrRobot
02-01-2012, 05:57 PM
**** the decisions, we were too poor again. We need to sign a good few players and play with some attacking threat.

Sproule should not be starting. Good guy but isnt a good enough footballer for us. Thought Palsson had his best game in quite some time, at least tried.

Wotherspiniesta
02-01-2012, 06:01 PM
He didn't leave the pitch and he wasn't antagonistic. Think all he did was point to his name? No justification to book him.




Of more concern is the regularity with which their support think they can run onto our pitch whenever they score against us. I'd like to see stewards stationed at the corner flags with flame throwers. :thumbsup:

Turning to our stand to point at our fans then point to his name. Is that not antagonising the fans then?

In a day and age where players get booked for celebrating with their own fans, this little prick chooses to taunt the Hibs fans and gets away with it?

NORTHERNHIBBY
02-01-2012, 06:08 PM
If the ref sent the Hearts boy off, would it not have been recinded on appeal and then Sproule gets something retrospective for simulation? What irrirated me about this is that this situation needed a decision from the ref. Either way, for the Hearts boy for violent intent or for Sproule for ungentlemanly conduct. Just funking it was not an option. I posted in play, that the ref was looking to the players to make the decisions for him, and that is not good enough. Never really showed that he was in charge of the game.

Hibs Class
02-01-2012, 06:12 PM
Turning to our stand to point at our fans then point to his name. Is that not antagonising the fans then?

In a day and age where players get booked for celebrating with their own fans, this little prick chooses to taunt the Hibs fans and gets away with it?

Sorry. I'm sure some of our support were antagonised but he he wasn't offensive. As far as I could see there were no offensive gestures, don't think he even kissed the badge. We're all frustrated and disappointed but you're clutching at straws if you think his celebration merited a booking.

Viva_Palmeiras
02-01-2012, 06:35 PM
In-line technology needs to be incorporated now. It is used in Rugby and does not take away from the game nor the atmosphere. It is great when issues occur that are decided by TV and fans get to see them back on the big screens - no probs and no wrong calls!
Have you read Platinis comment on tv ref decisions? It's a belter something along the lines of its unfootball like or it's not football takes away the human side and domething about too commercial!!!!! Too commercial football couldn't get much more commercial if it tried!!!!
Seems he's gone the way of Blatter if you can't beat them join them he should hang his Gallic buffont in shame

Sir David Gray
02-01-2012, 06:39 PM
Sorry. I'm sure some of our support were antagonised but he he wasn't offensive. As far as I could see there were no offensive gestures, don't think he even kissed the badge. We're all frustrated and disappointed but you're clutching at straws if you think his celebration merited a booking.

Rudi Skacel doesn't need to make any gestures to become offensive.

If I was a referee, I would give him a yellow card just for coming onto the pitch.

Viva_Palmeiras
02-01-2012, 06:42 PM
Why, so that one of the other relagation candidates can benefit? If he didn't get (didn'@tget) sent off there is no advantage to Hibs in him getting a retrospective punishment

Flaw with the current halfway house for me itshould be all or ref decision is final this position is untenable

Scouse Hibee
02-01-2012, 06:43 PM
Turning to our stand to point at our fans then point to his name. Is that not antagonising the fans then?

In a day and age where players get booked for celebrating with their own fans, this little prick chooses to taunt the Hibs fans and gets away with it?

FFS! Player scores in derby and rubs it in to the home fans...................so ****in what, can't believe some of the petty things people get upset about on here. :rolleyes:

MrRobot
02-01-2012, 06:52 PM
**** the decisions, we were too poor again. We need to sign a good few players and play with some attacking threat.

Sproule should not be starting. Good guy but isnt a good enough footballer for us. Thought Palsson had his best game in quite some time, at least tried.

matty_f
02-01-2012, 07:03 PM
The ref gave us f*** all all day. He's a ****.

McCrae
02-01-2012, 07:20 PM
3 - How did the officials miss the blatant offside for their opener? I was screaming at the TV for it in real time and yet even the commentators took several minutes to spot that Stack reacted late because Elliot had unsighted him.

Got this one wrong. Goal was onside. Player cannot be offside at a corner when the ball is played backwards across the goal. Ref got this correct. Would only be offside it he touched it after Websters header.

PeeJay
02-01-2012, 07:23 PM
Got this one wrong. Goal was onside. Player cannot be offside at a corner when the ball is played backwards across the goal. Ref got this correct. Would only be offside it he touched it after Websters header.

That can't be right - he was "interfering with play" - he was standing right in front of the goalie, surely?"

bruno
02-01-2012, 07:25 PM
FFS! Player scores in derby and rubs it in to the home fans...................so ****in what, can't believe some of the petty things people get upset about on here. :rolleyes:

He should know better only person that enjoyed it was the steward who pocketed the change that got thrown at him. To be honest i've only seen game live and through my maroon glasses from row NN so not the best. I thought ryan was stilly to react to ivan's foul but not an aggressive enough act to warrant a red. I think sproule's delayed reaction actually influenced the referee to not giving anything. Was quite bad foul in first place which could been a booking. I did think webster had a brief hold of griffiths jersey but think momentum took him down in saying that could have been given. Bit soft but possible. I don't think there any doubt that Elliot was off side but that was linesman's call not referee. I have to say i thought palsson committed many fouls before he was booked and in general ryan's red mist aside Hearts were far more disciplined

son of haggart
02-01-2012, 07:26 PM
Got this one wrong. Goal was onside. Player cannot be offside at a corner when the ball is played backwards across the goal. Ref got this correct. Would only be offside it he touched it after Websters header.

I am sure this is incorrect. The time when you would consider whether a player is offside is when the ball is struck (ie when webster headed the ball). At that moment Elliott was clearly in an offside position The only question is 'was he interfering with play?' The commentators were undecided on that but I thought he was - he did try to duck the header but even if he wasn't obstructing Stack's view his movement would be offputting.

Thought Murray got a few things wrong but he was clearly trying to let play flow most of the time. Many SPL refs would have sent off a few players in today's game

McCrae
02-01-2012, 07:31 PM
That can't be right - he was "interfering with play" - he was standing right in front of the goalie, surely?"

Nope, from a corner he can't be offside, you can only be offside if you are infront of the player passing the ball. Could only have been if he had touched the ball when Webster hit it.

son of haggart
02-01-2012, 07:34 PM
Nope, from a corner he can't be offside, you can only be offside if you are infront of the player passing the ball. Could only have been if he had touched the ball when Webster hit it.



I think you are missing the point. No one was offside from the corner. Any passing or hitting the ball forward after the corner has been taken, as Webster did, then anyone in front of them CAN be offside. Otherwise when do you consider it has stopped being a corner and open play has started again?

Hibbyradge
02-01-2012, 07:39 PM
The ref gave us f*** all all day. He's a ****.

He didn't send Stack off at the penalty.

Sir David Gray
02-01-2012, 07:41 PM
He didn't send Stack off at the penalty.

He had no reason to.

Elliott wasn't going straight towards goal, he was heading for the byline.

Hibbyradge
02-01-2012, 07:41 PM
I am sure this is incorrect. The time when you would consider whether a player is offside is when the ball is struck (ie when webster headed the ball). At that moment Elliott was clearly in an offside position The only question is 'was he interfering with play?' The commentators were undecided on that but I thought he was - he did try to duck the header but even if he wasn't obstructing Stack's view his movement would be offputting.

Thought Murray got a few things wrong but he was clearly trying to let play flow most of the time. Many SPL refs would have sent off a few players in today's game

I agree with you.

haagsehibby
02-01-2012, 07:48 PM
Nope, from a corner he can't be offside, you can only be offside if you are infront of the player passing the ball. Could only have been if he had touched the ball when Webster hit it.

Nonsense.

He was in an offside position as soon as Webster headed the ball. This is not an offence in itself but he was also interfering with play since FIFA define this as "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements"

So it should have been flagged for offside.

Check out

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/law/newsid=1290867.html

and do the interactive demonstration of the offside law.

Hibbyradge
02-01-2012, 07:52 PM
He had no reason to.

Elliott wasn't going straight towards goal, he was heading for the byline.

If Stack had been sent off, would you have been surprised?

He was past the keeper and could have been deemed to be in a scoring position.

Matty said we got no decisions. That was one in our favour.

son of haggart
02-01-2012, 07:55 PM
If Stack had been sent off, would you have been surprised?

He was past the keeper and could have been deemed to be in a scoring position.

Matty said we got no decisions. That was one in our favour.



....and I agree with you here - wouldn't have been surprised, and I was calling for it myself of course, but watching the replays Murray got it right. Seen plenty sent off in similar circumstances.

Wotherspiniesta
02-01-2012, 07:55 PM
FFS! Player scores in derby and rubs it in to the home fans...................so ****in what, can't believe some of the petty things people get upset about on here. :rolleyes:

Who's getting upset? All I was saying was it should have been a booking as it could have caused a lot of unnecessary bother. I'm all for players giving fans a little bit back if they're getting stick, but if you incite the fans of another team its generally accepted that its a booking. Just pointing out another (and there were many) of the mistakes made by the incompetent tosspot of a ref.

Mon_the_cabbage
02-01-2012, 07:57 PM
If Stack had been sent off, would you have been surprised

He was past the keeper and could have been deemed to be in a scoring position.

Matty said we got no decisions. That was one in our favour.

You are stretching it here to try and prove some kind of point I fear.

The Hearts player was not in full control of the ball and was not heading towards goal, no way was that a goal scoring opportunity.

For info, if he had got round Stack, can you tell me how would he have scored?

Hibbyradge
02-01-2012, 08:01 PM
You are stretching it here to try and prove some kind of point I fear.

The Hearts player was not in full control of the ball and was not heading towards goal, no way was that a goal scoring opportunity.

For info, if he had got round Stack, can you tell me how would he have scored?

I'm not stretching anything to make any point.

The TV replays showed that the ref got it right, but when I saw it at the time, I thought Stack would walk.

Mon_the_cabbage
02-01-2012, 08:06 PM
I'm not stretching anything to make any point.

The TV replays showed that the ref got it right, but when I saw it at the time, I thought Stack would walk.

Are you saying then that the ref made the right call? He booked Stack which I think is the norm for such a penalty.

So therefore, to say he made a decision in our favour is wrong. He made the correct decision.

PeeJay
02-01-2012, 08:11 PM
Nope, from a corner he can't be offside, you can only be offside if you are infront of the player passing the ball. Could only have been if he had touched the ball when Webster hit it.

A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

The SFA rulebook suggests you maybe ought to reconsider your POV?:greengrin

Crab apple
02-01-2012, 08:19 PM
I think Murray is one of our better refs but he got a number of decisions wrong today. As a self proclaimed jambo (from his early career) I do think we should have someone else in charge for derbies. Can you imagine the reaction in the Weedge when a ref with stated affiliations for one or the other takes charge of their new year derby.

Sir David Gray
02-01-2012, 08:22 PM
I think Murray is one of our better refs but he got a number of decisions wrong today. As a self proclaimed jambo (from his early career) I do think we should have someone else in charge for derbies. Can you imagine the reaction in the Weedge when a ref with stated affiliations for one or the other takes charge of their new year derby.

I've only ever heard this on here but I've no reason to doubt it.

If he definitely has sympathies towards Hearts, which are public knowledge, then there's no way that he should be in charge of an Edinburgh derby.

McCrae
02-01-2012, 08:50 PM
That can't be right - he was "interfering with play" - he was standing right in front of the goalie, surely?"

Nope, from a corner he can't be offside, you can only be offside if you are infront of the player passing the ball. Could only have been if he had touched the ball when Webster hit it.

Hibbyradge
02-01-2012, 08:53 PM
Nope, from a corner he can't be offside, you can only be offside if you are infront of the player passing the ball. Could only have been if he had touched the ball when Webster hit it.

The offside wasn't from the corner. It was the next phase.

Saorsa
02-01-2012, 08:54 PM
The offside wasn't from the comer. It was the next phase.Think you're wasting your time there I'm afraid. :agree:

Billy Whizz
02-01-2012, 08:57 PM
I've just watched for the 1st time on tv as I was at the match. Elliott is certainly interfering with play so should have been given offside in the 2nd phase of play

son of haggart
02-01-2012, 09:01 PM
Think you're wasting your time there I'm afraid. :agree:

Yep, I've given up!

PeachyCarnehan
02-01-2012, 09:01 PM
I think Murray is one of our better refs but he got a number of decisions wrong today. As a self proclaimed jambo (from his early career) I do think we should have someone else in charge for derbies. Can you imagine the reaction in the Weedge when a ref with stated affiliations for one or the other takes charge of their new year derby.

No one complained much when Dougie MacDonald took charge of a derby.

He let some of Hibs players away with murder today, particularly in regards to some of the tackles on Black.

ronaldo7
02-01-2012, 09:17 PM
Callum has had one of his worst days today.

He'd normally get most of those calls correct today, however we sometimes have off days.

Even some of his 50/50's went his own teams way.

We've started counting Callum.

Crab apple
02-01-2012, 09:23 PM
No one complained much when Dougie MacDonald took charge of a derby.

He let some of Hibs players away with murder today, particularly in regards to some of the tackles on Black.


I don't ever recall seeing Dougie write he was a Hibs fan during his time as a ref.

As I said he got a number of decisions wrong today. The 50/50's did seem to favour the ****bos don't you think?

Greentinted
02-01-2012, 09:50 PM
He should know better only person that enjoyed it was the steward who pocketed the change that got thrown at him. To be honest i've only seen game live and through my maroon glasses from row NN so not the best. I thought ryan was stilly to react to ivan's foul but not an aggressive enough act to warrant a red. I think sproule's delayed reaction actually influenced the referee to not giving anything. Was quite bad foul in first place which could been a booking. I did think webster had a brief hold of griffiths jersey but think momentum took him down in saying that could have been given. Bit soft but possible. I don't think there any doubt that Elliot was off side but that was linesman's call not referee. I have to say i thought palsson committed many fouls before he was booked and in general ryan's red mist aside Hearts were far more disciplined

I have to agree here, Sproule's melodramatic histrionics did him no favours at all. A head-butt of any force regardless of outcome should be regarded as a punch (even one of the fresh air variety) and should have resulted in a red card.

Having said that, to blame the ref for the defeat would merely smack of churlish sour grapes. Most predicted a doing, most were right. Time for our lot to shape up or bugger off.

ronaldo7
02-01-2012, 10:22 PM
I have to agree here, Sproule's melodramatic histrionics did him no favours at all. A head-butt of any force regardless of outcome should be regarded as a punch (even one of the fresh air variety) and should have resulted in a red card.

Having said that, to blame the ref for the defeat would merely smack of churlish sour grapes. Most predicted a doing, most were right. Time for our lot to shape up or bugger off.

First off can I say that I thought Hertz, on the balance of play deserved to win today, however this doesn't detract from Calum's inept performance in the 50/50 balls, and major decisions to be made. These decisions are the make up of the game and they either win or lose it for you. I thought he had a poor game today, and one in which he'd normally have stolled through.

His card has been marked as well as his lino's who must have been blindfolded to Elliot in front of Stack.

Kaiser1962
02-01-2012, 10:47 PM
I have to agree here, Sproule's melodramatic histrionics did him no favours at all. A head-butt of any force regardless of outcome should be regarded as a punch (even one of the fresh air variety) and should have resulted in a red card.

Having said that, to blame the ref for the defeat would merely smack of churlish sour grapes. Most predicted a doing, most were right. Time for our lot to shape up or bugger off.


Total embarassment and made him look nothing short of ridiculous. Cringeworthy.